Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manybooks.net


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Manybooks.net

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

On the surface this looks like a referenced article. However, if you remove self-sources, blogs, press releases, trivial namechecks in lists of services that do X, and of course WP:OR (X does Y! Source: X page on Y), there's actually nothing left. The only non-trivial independent source is a blog. Guy (Help!) 14:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment This article lists the website as being non-commercial, yet the site itself is covered in advertising, along with a 'donate' button. Surely this is misleading and not in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. Especially as the site seems to be simply regurgitating Project Gutenberg titles. The owner is listed as Advertical Media, LLC, which looks suspiciously commercial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.21.31 (talk • contribs)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Looking at the sources I don't believe it's notable, same finding as Guy, and can't find additional sources. The name "manybooks" makes searching difficult. There are many PD text re-packaging sites and this one has pretty good quality but nothing out of the ordinary. --  Green  C  04:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 06:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)




 * Delete While the article has a lot of sources, none of them can satisfy WP:GNG. Further, given the apparent nature of site, its promotion here is borderline WP:G11 Leondz (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.